Re: Formal consultation prior to closing the secsh working group

[Steve Suehring <suehring%braingia.org@localhost>]

For my part, I'd like to see the URI draft finalized and passed through.  From what I recall, there 
was some disagreement over some bits of the SCP and SFTP but the SSH portion was largely finalized.  
Therefore, I'd like to propose that the SSH portion of the draft be taken individually.  We had talked 
about this months ago but never followed through.

Therefore, I can resubmit the draft with just the SSH bits so that it can be progressed if that's 
still an option for this WG.

Steve

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:15:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi folks.
> 
> The ssh working group has accomplished its primary objective and has
> published the core protocol as RFCs.  We've also published several
> related extensions.
> 
> We have not managed to publish the filexfer, URI or X.509 drafts.
> 
> However, I've come to the conclusion that there is insufficient energy
> in this working group to continue reviewing or producing documents.
> All of our milestones are from 2005.  There seems to be no significant
> activity on anything other than the filexfer draft.  
> 
> I'm very concerned about the filexfer draft.  It is well on the way to
> becoming a filesystem, not just an ftp-like protocol.  I am concerned
> that we don't have enough reviewers to manage the complexity of the
> draft and to force us to make hard decisions about what features we
> really need.  Instead, we're close to including everything.  I have
> received several private comments to this effect.  I am not sure that
> we have the skill set necessary to design and review a filesystem
> document and I think that is what filexfer is becoming.
> 
> 
> RFC 2418 defines procedures for creating, managing and terminating of
> working groups.  That document stresses the importance of an active
> community of reviewers and subject matter experts.  IT makes it clear
> that it is the responsibility of the working group to make sure the
> right people are available to do the work of the WG.
> 
> I no longer think this working group has sufficient reviewers or
> contributors.  So, I propose to close the working group.
> 
> RFC 2418 requires a formal consultation prior to closing a working
> group.  This message serves as the beginning of such a consultation.
> I'd like to solicit comments on the proposal to close the secsh
> working group by August 14, 2006.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sam Hartman
> Security Area Director